2019/2020 Trade Speculation and Rumors 2.0

[Two Fivenagame]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

With Hamonic injured nothing

Ok fine, how about Brodie? Maybe a 1st?

Point being, I think BT made a mistake doubling down on a bad bet that was the Flames. They should have sold. Get something while they can.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The reason why they are in this desert is because they have miss managed assets in the past (Iginla, Regehr, Bouw, Kipper)...they can’t afford to do that with Johnny

Those were all declining assets that the team held onto too long, supporting a core that was too old.

Johnny is in his prime and the core is mostly in their prime, other than Gio.

Very different situations.

The fact that they waited too long to move Iginla does not mean that every asset lost (Hamonic and Brodie, for example, if lost) is the same mistake

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Surely there's room for both, especially considering the point has long been made, established and confirmed.

Hamonic being injured was a forecastable conclusion and when he let it be publicly known that he wasn't going to sign an extension through the year he should have been moved within a matter of weeks.



While I agree that both the trade for him was bad and that the picks turned into nothing, it's a heck of a lot different than moving out a first and having a player walk away than gaining a 1st after trading a player away.

One asset petered out, the hamonic assets vanished.

Even if it's the same thing are you sure you want to be comparing Treliving and Feaster so directy?

Because if you are, I've got some pretty good one liners about how the regime has changed and things are different now.

There's your problem right there.

Strategies about how to run a team cannot be 'confirmed', they are, by nature, opinions. However, you are so certain about your opinion that you have confirmation bias on all events, and are incapable of considering other opinions on this topic.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Surely there's room for both, especially considering the point has long been made, established and confirmed.

What point? The problem with a snarky one-liner is that it's hard to tell whatever point you are even trying to make? That some people are saying that "things are better now"? That's a gross over simplification of views. People have taken the time to outline what they think BT has done well, and what he doesn't done so well - in balanced fashions. Some think he deserves to be back, and some don't. That's fine. There's room on both sides. But don't dismiss the views that you don't disagree with or minimize how people arrive at them.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Hamonic being injured was a forecastable conclusion and when he let it be publicly known that he wasn't going to sign an extension through the year he should have been moved within a matter of weeks.

Agreed. I would have done that. But the question and the one I answered was what he could have netted at the deadline. The answer to that is nothing.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

While I agree that both the trade for him was bad and that the picks turned into nothing, it's a heck of a lot different than moving out a first and having a player walk away than gaining a 1st after trading a player away.

Both were bad moves. I guess you can take your pick on which one was worse. Bouwmeester had a year left, and if the best you could do was Cundari, Berra and a late 1st in a shallow draft - they should have held on to him.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

One asset petered out, the hamonic assets vanished.

Even if it's the same thing are you sure you want to be comparing Treliving and Feaster so directy?

Because if you are, I've got some pretty good one liners about how the regime has changed and things are different now.

I bet you do. But no need to re-run the "Best of Flash Walken" - I've seen that show more than enough times.

You seemed to raise Bouwmeester as a good example of strong asset management. The good part of it was authored by Sutter, to trade for his rights and sign him.
But management of that asset from the next regime was piss poor. If we want to compare bodies of work between Feaster and Tre we can do that I guess but I agree that is pointless and not what I was doing.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Two Fivenagame

Ok fine, how about Brodie? Maybe a 1st?

Point being, I think BT made a mistake doubling down on a bad bet that was the Flames. They should have sold. Get something while they can.

I would have traded Brodie, but with the injuries they had - that would have been tossing the season, so that's probably why they didn't.
Not what I would have done, but I understand both sides.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There's your problem right there.

Strategies about how to run a team cannot be 'confirmed', they are, by nature, opinions. However, you are so certain about your opinion that you have confirmation bias on all events, and are incapable of considering other opinions on this topic.

It's not confirmed that the flames have been terrible?

They won a playoff round I'm not aware of?

Lazar is a 20 goal scorer and no one told me?

Is the last 10 years of franchise history and results in dispute now?

Is this the Calgarypuck Qanon?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Those were all declining assets that the team held onto too long, supporting a core that was too old.

Johnny is in his prime and the core is mostly in their prime, other than Gio.

Very different situations.

The fact that they waited too long to move Iginla does not mean that every asset lost (Hamonic and Brodie, for example, if lost) is the same mistake

I agree they are different situations, but the commonality is that the asset (Johnny) is reaching a critical stage where he could be lost for nothing. In the case of the previous core, that pinch point was created by looming retirement and the aging players. In this case it's the contract status creating that risk.

So the commonality is the risk. The elements of that risk are very different.

You can afford to lose some of your high end players for nothing, but with this organization it's happened too much, and I don't think they can afford to do it with Johnny.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's not confirmed that the flames have been terrible?

They won a playoff round I'm not aware of?

Lazar is a 20 goal scorer and no one told me?

Is the last 10 years of franchise history and results in dispute now?

Is this the Calgarypuck Qanon?

So all your opinions come back to this.
Neat. But not really anywhere to go with it.

Here's how I evaluate things to some degree.
First you evaluate if the team has the right strategy. Then you evaluate the moves they are making within that strategy.

Meaning I can still disagree with their high level strategies (examples being making moves to open up the contention window early, and trying to continue to re-tool to win now) but still examine how effective they are in executing that strategy.


You seem to be in a never-ending trap where you think people are disagreeing with you that the Flames have moved too many picks, tried to compete too early, mis-managed assets, etc.

Few are disagreeing with you on those items. The debate over the Lazar deal is long over for everyone but you. I think almost everyone would take a do-over on the Hamonic deal. So again I ask - who are you arguing with?

It comes down to the fact that perhaps you simply want BT fired and Murray Edwards to sell the team (if I'm wrong on either point correct me). And you want Edwards to spend more money to buy Neal out and acquire over paid players. But if those things don't happen, where does that leave you?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's not confirmed that the flames have been terrible?

They won a playoff round I'm not aware of?

Lazar is a 20 goal scorer and no one told me?

Is the last 10 years of franchise history and results in dispute now?

Is this the Calgarypuck Qanon?

You just proved my point perfectly with that post.

First of all, no it is not 'confirmed' that they have been terrible. YOU feel they have been terrible, as do others. But many (probably most) would not describe them as terrible, more likely, mediocre, or inconsistent, or many other OPINIONS.

And on that, again due to your singular blindness, you are determined to lump all past history in with current events, because you are determined to pound your narrative.

The rest of your post is just ranting and doesn't warrant comment.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I agree they are different situations, but the commonality is that the asset (Johnny) is reaching a critical stage where he could be lost for nothing. In the case of the previous core, that pinch point was created by looming retirement and the aging players. In this case it's the contract status creating that risk.

So the commonality is the risk. The elements of that risk are very different.

You can afford to lose some of your high end players for nothing, but with this organization it's happened too much, and I don't think they can afford to do it with Johnny.

But as Calgary4Life posited, the core is in win now mode, which is very different than any of those other situations.

To be clear, I am all for a trade, if it is good for the team. But the idea that we HAVE to trade him, because he may leave in two years, is not as valid when you factor in that the team is - and arguably, should be - in win now mode.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But as Calgary4Life posited, the core is in win now mode, which is very different than any of those other situations.

To be clear, I am all for a trade, if it is good for the team. But the idea that we HAVE to trade him, because he may leave in two years, is not as valid when you factor in that the team is - and arguably, should be - in win now mode.

I'm not sure why it is considered a win now mode. We aren't winning anything. 3 playoff game wins in 5 seasons - whatever "window" some people may think is open is an entirely false concept, likely established 6 seasons ago when we beat the Canucks.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'm not sure why it is considered a win now mode. We aren't winning anything. 3 playoff game wins in 5 seasons - whatever "window" some people may think is open is an entirely false concept, likely established 6 seasons ago when we beat the Canucks.

Because their best players - Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Brodie and Tkachuk to an extent - are in their prime. And other key players - Giordano and Backlund - are going to decline going forward.

Just because they haven't had success yet, doesn't mean they can't next year (see St Louis last year)

When your core is in their prime, pretty much every organization will look to add to it, not tear it apart and start over again.

the difference between winning and losing is razor-thin.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What point? The problem with a snarky one-liner is that it's hard to tell whatever point you are even trying to make? That some people are saying that "things are better now"? That's a gross over simplification of views. People have taken the time to outline what they think BT has done well, and what he doesn't done so well - in balanced fashions. Some think he deserves to be back, and some don't. That's fine. There's room on both sides. But don't dismiss the views that you don't disagree with or minimize how people arrive at them.

I'm dismissing the views that are increasingly not supported by the evidence. You yourself just made the connection between treliving and feaster. I'm not going to belabor that because I know it's not what you're trying to do, but posts like the one by Enoch above about how the jury is still out on the Flames strategy deserves mockery.

Not because it's a differing view, but because it's absolute lunacy at this point in the face of the overwhelming evidence of it not working worth a damn.

Sure, maybe I'm not making a very clear case when I make a snarky remark, but it's because I've already made the point ad nauseum.

Other posters and mods seem very content with this in regards to posters like Ricardow, so I figure it's kosher.

Both were bad moves. I guess you can take your pick on which one was worse. Bouwmeester had a year left, and if the best you could do was Cundari, Berra and a late 1st in a shallow draft - they should have held on to him.

Considering bouwmeester returned a 1st and bera who was turned into a 2nd, I don't really think it's a case of taking your pick between gaining a 1st and a 2nd and giving up a 1st and 2x2nds.

Like, ok, neither is a good trade, but one is selling low on a player with a year left and another is getting absolutely fleeced.

You can say it's a pick'em but I mean...

You seemed to raise Bouwmeester as a good example of strong asset management. The good part of it was authored by Sutter, to trade for his rights and sign him.
But management of that asset from the next regime was piss poor. If we want to compare bodies of work between Feaster and Tre we can do that I guess but I agree that is pointless and not what I was doing.

I'm not saying it was good, I'm saying it wasn't horrible, which is largely the legacy of the hamonic deal, culminating in him likely leaving to free agency.

At the very least the flames got something for bouwmeester, and that something was considerably more than they gave up to get him.

[Two Fivenagame]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'm not sure why it is considered a win now mode. We aren't winning anything. 3 playoff game wins in 5 seasons - whatever "window" some people may think is open is an entirely false concept, likely established 6 seasons ago when we beat the Canucks.

Agreed. How can a team be in a win-now mode when they can barely win 1 playoff game. What leader looks at the body of work over the past 6 years and says "yeah, we're going for it. We're buyers!"

It just seems so short sighted and typically Flames to be bleeding assets like this for nothing.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Because their best players - Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Brodie and Tkachuk to an extent - are in their prime. And other key players - Giordano and Backlund - are going to decline going forward.

Just because they haven't had success yet, doesn't mean they can't next year (see St Louis last year)

When your core is in their prime, pretty much every organization will look to add to it, not tear it apart and start over again.

the difference between winning and losing is razor-thin.

All that should tell you is that it's a poorly structured team. Also, St. Louis made HUGE additions to their rosters in the two summer preceding their Cup win - they added a #2 and #1 centre, and it still took a breakout (nearly) Conn Smyth quality run from a random goalie that didn't have a history of being an absolutely mediocre NHL goalie (...like all of Tree's goalie's acquisitions)

But let's look at their playoff successes before winning it all:

18/19: Stanley Cup
Summer of 18: Added a #1 centre
17/18: Missed playoffs
Summer of 17: Added a #2 centre
16/17: Won 6 playoff games
15/16: Won 10 playoff games
14/15: Won 2 playoff games

34 playoff wins in the last 5 seasons, and 18 playoff wins in the 4 season preceding their Stanley Cup season - and they STILL added two top six centres before getting over the hump.

This team has 3 playoff wins in 5 seasons and hasn't improved the roster in over two full seasons.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

All that should tell you is that it's a poorly structured team. Also, St. Louis made HUGE additions to their rosters in the two summer preceding their Cup win - they added a #2 and #1 centre.

But let's look at their playoff successes before winning:

18/19: Stanley Cup
Summer of 18: Added a #1 centre
17/18: Missed playoffs
Summer of 17: Added a #2 centre
16/17: Won 6 playoff games
15/16: Won 10 playoff games
14/15: Won 2 playoff games

34 playoff wins in the last 5 seasons, and 18 playoff wins in the 4 season preceding their Stanley Cup season - and they STILL added two top six centres before getting over the hump.

This team has 3 playoff wins in 5 seasons and hasn't improved the roster in over two full seasons.

First of all, it's not up to me.

But even if it is poorly structured, every organization with a core in their prime is going to try and fix that structure (find the missing pieces), not start another rebuild.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So all your opinions come back to this.
Neat. But not really anywhere to go with it.

Here's how I evaluate things to some degree.
First you evaluate if the team has the right strategy. Then you evaluate the moves they are making within that strategy.

Absolutely, you can probably go back and find me being very positive towards the brouwer signing, the harmonic trade, the Hamilton trade etc.

Meaning I can still disagree with their high level strategies (examples being making moves to open up the contention window early, and trying to continue to re-tool to win now) but still examine how effective they are in executing that strategy.

I would say besides game threads, that's the bulk of what I participate with on the flame board. It's my favourite thing to discuss.

You seem to be in a never-ending trap where you think people are disagreeing with you that the Flames have moved too many picks, tried to compete too early, mis-managed assets, etc.

Few are disagreeing with you on those items. The debate over the Lazar deal is long over for everyone but you. I think almost everyone would take a do-over on the Hamonic deal. So again I ask - who are you arguing with?

I don't care about the Lazar trade, it's a truncheon. When someone says something can't be confirmed after years of having it confirmed for them, it turns to absurdist comedy.

Trading for bouwmeesters right didn't end up working out, and trading for widemans rights turned into a disaster, but maybe trading for Hall's rights is a master plan...

I dunno, I think that's pretty funny.

It comes down to the fact that perhaps you simply want BT fired and Murray Edwards to sell the team (if I'm wrong on either point correct me). And you want Edwards to spend more money to buy Neal out and acquire over paid players. But if those things don't happen, where does that leave you?

No, see, I want the Flames to be good and not horrible, but they actively refuse, so now instead of picking a backup team to follow like I have for the last decade I just wait for Seattle to get a team.

[TheScorpion]

Wideman was a good Flame for three, maybe four years. That wasn't close to a disaster

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

First of all, it's not up to me.

But even if it is poorly structured, every organization with a core in their prime is going to try and fix that structure (find the missing pieces), not start another rebuild.

I know it's not up to you, I'm just questioning this entire line of thinking the team is in any sort of "window".

Yeah, every organization is always trying to get better. Treliving really has failed in doing that though, and this team has never established any sort of "window" because of it. He hasn't been good enough.

6 years and he still doesn't have a goalie worthy of being considered a top 10, or even top 15.

6 years in and he still hasn't hired a competent NHL coach.

...man I'm not even that overly negative towards Tree because I do think consistency is important, but the more you step back and look at his run he just hasn't done an awful lot. His last two years have been outright pitiful.

I think the only thing he's really nailed as our GM are the acquisition of Dougie Hamilton, and improved the drafting from being an absolute joke to of actual NHL quality.

[Flash Walken]

If the difference between winning and losing is razor thin why have the flames been on one side of that since the lockout?

15 straight years of bad luck?